About your Search

20100901
20100930
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3
understand it will prohibit us from having human access to lower earth orbit on our own rockets and spacecraft until the private aerospace industry is able to qualify their hardware underdevelopment as rated for human occupancy. i support the encouragement of newcomers to provide lower-cost access to space. but having cut my teeth in rockets more than 50 years ago, i am not confident. the most experienced rocket engineers with him i have spoken believe that it will require many years and substantial investment to reach the necessary level of safety and reliability. if these experts are correct, the united states will be limited to buying passage to the international space station from russia and will be prohibited from flying to other destinations in lowercase earth orbit or destinations in the outer space frontier. -- in the lower space-b sorbate or destinations in the outer space frontier. i believe that if the national space plan is subject to the normal review process of this congress, the aerospace industry and the reliable experts that we know in the military and the aeros
. to us your thoughts about a story line of 1994 versus -- give us your thoughts on the story line of 1994 versus 20103 how can democrats governor's mitigate what many are talking about as a wave election? >> first of all, it is a different year, by definition -- i will start with that fact. there are clearly parallels to 1994, and i think there are pretty serious the distinctions. it seems that the series distinctions are that we democrats were asleep at the switch in 1994. we were complacent, we or smog, and to put it bluntly -- we were smug, and to put it bluntly, we were again. that is not the case today. we have been on red alert for a long, long time. no. 2 is that the republicans were identified in 1994. you mentioned this. they were unified in 1994. people forget the contract with -- some of us call it the contract on america. dee dee and i were talking about that. the white house was pretty smug about that. "no one is going to listen to that." newt gingrich, think of him what you may, and we have a lot of him -- he had atampa - lot of thoughts. the tea party has a downside for us
you can use it on current employees, legacy employees so someone decides i want to clean it up. i have someone who has been five or 10 years, i want a legal work force and run their names through e-verify. why not? why not give the employers a tool? why not let them use e hifere verify with a prospective employee with a legitimate job offer. we have that under a drug testing law in iowa. if you show up and you want a job, go through all of the hoops and they can say to you, i have gone through all the hoops, you have to take a drug test before we can put you to work. that's what we do in iowa. no complaints, no lawsuits. and i encourage them to do that. we should be able to provide as employers an illegal-free workplace so modernizing e-verify so it can be used on current legacy employees and with a legitimate job offer is a legitimate thing to do. and the third component we need to do, madam speaker, out of this, is we need to clarify wages and benefits to illegals are not deductible for federal income tax purposes and doing that allows the i.r.s. to run the social security numbers an
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)